Isn't that the method which was already known on iPhone but not published, exactly because they were waiting for iPad to come out? (so they could use the same method on both)
I don't think the children were ever in any danger. If anything, having to jailbreak the iPad is more of a challenge and promotes the hacking spirit. Further on down the thread someone mentions the fact that in Turkey, most of the iPhone users, even non-power users, have jailbroken iPhones. I think that in this respect Apple's attempt at security may even promote hacking and jailbreaking. It may be a healthy experience to start with a locked device and have to jailbreak it.
It's the only reason I've ever been interested in Apple's mobile devices. I joined the iPhone Dev Team right after the iPhone came out and worked on it through the initial unlock. Once the challenge was gone, I moved on to greener pastures. It wasn't to get some specific goal (I never really installed any apps on my phone), but just to do it and have some fun. Everyone should reverse-engineer something like that at some point -- the feeling can't be beat.
Awesome observation. Going through the jailbreak process is almost like a rite of passage to hackerdom -- kind of neat if you think about it.
I could see this becoming a formality 5-10 years from now that people go through for old-times sake, similar to how we always write "Hello World" whenever we start in a new language.
Change "break the law" to "go against the wishes of the copyright holder", and the answer is yes.
When you buy the device, it's yours.
The perception that copyright allows the copyright holder to dictate everything you do with a device or piece of content is spurious, and the more people realize that, the better.
The perception that copyright allows the copyright holder to dictate everything you do with a device or piece of content is spurious
In a reasonable world, this would be true. But sadly Apple is most likely correct as a matter of law. The DMCA prohibits "circumvention" of copyright protection measures, regardless of whether you're doing so for the purpose of copyright infringement. It's a backdoor method of eliminating fair use, and like many other companies Apple has figured out how to take advantage of it to deny our property rights.
I don't see why companies even bother doing this, if it'll just get jail broken a few days after release....especially if it's such a popular product like the iPad.
Because if a user does this, than Apple doesn't have to support them, which significantly reduces the sorts of problems tech support has to deal with. It allows them to control the "standard user experience". As pointed out above, most people aren't going to jail break it.
Didn't know that. At least in Turkey, pretty much every iphone is jailbroken, including those owned by regular, non-power users. Actually, the only non-jailbroken iPhone i've seen in Turkey belonged to an exchange student in our school, from US.
You are right. Carriers here (Philippines) charge way too much for the iPhone that it will be insane and impractical for the average working guy to get one. And they tie you up for 2 years. I mean WTF.
No. The Apple Stores do not sell them at full price. You must buy one from the carriers. Great isn't it?
The people I know buy their phones from people who come from the US. Most I know people use online forums and meet in person for the payment. Online payments really do not work here in the Philippines (not mainstream).
Also, shipping is expensive here because the Philippines is an archipelago :(
Online payments are not mainstream here. So my friends try to avoid paying for anything as much as possible.
My brother uses an iPod Touch. He has never paid for apps. I know this because he doesn't have a credit card and is still in school. He just uses it to browse the internet and listen to music -- like most people here who has WiFi on their phones.
I doubt Apple is spending much money to stop jailbreakers. They just don't make it easy. In most cases these jailbreak methods are exploiting unrelated bugs to get root access on the phone. Stuff Apple has to fix. For example: The 2.x Safari jailbreak method. If you look at other closed platforms like gaming consoles you can see some serious anti-cracking efforts. The Xbox 360 for example has a very sophisticated security system. Microsoft scans devices for known exploits and even bans them from Xbox Live for life if found. Apple could make iTunes check the device for modifications. They could force the device to constantly report back to Apple and report a modified device. They could ban the device from accessing the App Store. All things considered Apple isn't going overboard to stop jailbreaking. I would guess it's just folded into the iPhone OS security team's normal day to day work.
The biggest proponent I see for Apple wanting to stop jailbreaking is app piracy, which I heard was a big deal, especially around the decent $10 games from companies you've heard of (EA, etc.).
Personally I'm on the side of the fence that would rather have no homebrew or jailbreak if it prevents piracy, but I'm sure others would disagree with me.
Myth. The methods used are already illegal under existing copyright law.
The idea that they were trying to get it made illegal comes from the EFF's attempt to get it specifically exempted (i.e. made legal). There is a triennial process for getting such exemptions made, which the EFF in 2006 called "fundamentally broken", but yet returned to participating in in 2009. Apple objected (using that same process) on the grounds that that the EFF's proposal did not meet the criteria required by that process. The EFF reported that as if Apple were trying to get the law changed, but it was in fact the EFF proposing a change. And from there the myth spread.
Even if you agree with the EFF, it's not accurate to say that anybody is trying to get it made illegal. To be frank, I don't agree with the EFF, but here I'm just trying to correct the facts. I would link to the specific documents, but the Copyright Office site appears to be down. If you're interested, look for the DMCA 2009 rulemaking comments and responses.
The EFF reported that as if Apple were trying to get the law changed, but it was in fact the EFF proposing a change.
I don't see that. The EFF's statement at http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking... agrees with your account: they asked the Copyright Office for an exemption for jailbreaking (which probably is illegal under the DMCA), and Apple responded saying that jailbreaking is and should remain illegal.
To be frank, I don't agree with the EFF
Really. So anyone who jailbreaks their iPhone should be considered a criminal?
That's exactly the reporting I mean. I've seen that same article (or blog posts linking back to it) cited as evidence of that (false) claim many times. It's exactly how and why I informed myself in the first place.
Even the title of the story is "Apple says jailbreaking is illegal". But it is regardless of what Apple said. It's a half-truth, and the half that's left out changes the implication of what is left. The lede repeats this. They also leave out the relevant detail that Apple's filing was a response to a proposed class of exemptions, not an activist effort on their part. Indeed, the relationship between the two documents is not made clear at all. Where you say "and Apple responded" in your summary, you're not getting that from the EFF's article. Read it again.
If the EFF claimed to be an unbiased news organization, I'd believe that it was a simple mistake, but they don't so I don't. They want to make Apple look like a big bad bully (which is their right and natural from their position, of course), but the way they chose to do so has perpetuated misinformation. I think that sucks rather independently of my disagreement with them.
I don't think it was intentional deception, just a nasty side effect of opinionated reporting. The EFF even hosts a copy of the same document under the link title Apple Reply to Proposed Jailbreaking Exemption (on this page http://www.eff.org/cases/2009-dmca-rulemaking), which manages to say in six words that the blog post managed not to at all.
So anyone who jailbreaks their iPhone should be considered a criminal?
I said I don't agree with the EFF. If someone has a better argument, I might agree with that. In principle, I don't agree with the notion that buying a device means you have the right to infringe on the copyright of the software it came with any more than buying a book gives you the right to infringe on the copyright of the text.
Gaming consoles are made for a single purpose: buy a game, play the game, done.
smartphones, tablets and PCs have much more use cases and the manufacturer wants to make me believe i can do "everything" with it. Oh wait, no, i can't.
Not for two years; and please provide your data showing they were losing money because of banning modders, and not because they were keeping the price below what it costs to develop, market and produce the system in order to gain market penetration.
What ton's of money? Not supporting an ssh server hardly costs anything. Encrypting updates is essentially no engineering once you are digitally signing them for integrity.
I'd like to enhance the firmware of my airport express units, but the firmware encryption stops me. It annoys me, but it didn't cost apple anything to do it.
AFAIK Linksys did not intentionally make the WRT54G hackable; they were forced into releasing the OS source when it was found that it was based on GPLed linux components.
Specifically, "The Linux-based open source Wireless-N Broadband Router with Storage Link (WRT160NL) was created specially for hobbyists and wireless aficionados."
I understand Apple's motivation for control although I'm not sure I like it. However, Linksys/Cisco is just selling commodity hardware for low margins. It's not razors & razorblades, and there's no ecosystem to manage. Why should they care if their hardware is used with 3rd party software? I wouldn't have bought my WRT54GL's if I couldn't run DD-WRT on them.
The WRT54G was hackable long before they realized there was a market and put out the L. The stock WRT54G, L or not, was quite flexible. The L just had more memory and more flash, so you could do crazy things like running spamassassin on your router :)
Yes, I realize that - and in fact I have DD-WRT running on my old WRT54G, but our market is not the mass market (I'm starting to sound like a broken record on that point). Sample 100 random WRT54G buyers, how many even knew that the router was hackable, and in the tiny minority that were even aware of such a possibility, how did it account into the purchase decision?
Not to knock on the router, but I seriously doubt its hackability had any major influence on its success.
But using a random version of Linux that they found on the Internet was probably cheaper than developing their own custom OS and DRM scheme. Cheap product development == more profit. And happier users, in this case.
The WRT54G shows that an inexpensive product that meets everyone's needs will sell better than an overpriced product that intentionally limits its own functionality.
Philosophically and personally, I prefer more open platforms, but it's one of two things - either they're running some cost/benefit analysis that says it's a good move strategically - more sales or easier to preserve a better brand image or more secondary sales. Or, and this is quite possible too, they agree to some basic security measures by contract with a partner of theirs - perhaps AT&T in Apple's case.
This isn't so surprising to me. The iPad runs iPhone OS and the 3.2 seed has been available to developers for some time.
"iPhone OS" is a bit of a misnomer, since it refers to the software running on iPhone, iPod touch, and now iPad. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_OS)
Slightly OT but is anyone aware of variant OS installations on iPad (was the mentioned Cydia one example?).
Love the feel of device, would be much happier browsing with Chrome, and copying media/software as I wish. The Apple hardware/software coupling always frustrates me.
